Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at this stage.

However, this does not need further clauses that seek to fetter that discourse. It needs the lightest touch, which is achieved through the balanced and established relationship between police and prosecutor.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Obviously, the Minister is probably more familiar with the Bill than I am. I just getting a little bit lost on his comments here. Is he saying that the only time that new evidence comes to light is through an investigation? That is just not the case. Sometimes evidence appears when there is not an ongoing investigation. Also, is he saying that, in that case, when new evidence comes to light, an investigation should not happen? For my benefit and perhaps that of other members of the Committee who are not as familiar with the Bill as he is, could he please explain where in the Bill there is a limit on reinvestigation at this moment?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am happy to address the point about reinvestigation, because there are no circumstances in which anybody could arrive at the Ministry of Defence with an allegation of criminality or whatever it might be and we could not investigate it. There is a difference between investigations and where those investigations start impacting the lives of veterans, which is what the Bill seeks to deal with and which is why we have drawn the line where we have. We are not saying that new evidence comes only from investigation, but, as I have outlined, new clause 7 introduces an element of oversight that is simply not practicable to what we are trying to do. I have outlined that the 3,500 cases in Iraq and 1,000 in Afghanistan, and it is not practicable to do that and to ensure there is a speedy resolution, that evidence is preserved, that if people have done wrong we can prosecute them in a timely manner and so on. I am happy to have a further conversation with the hon. Lady about that later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

I rise to speak briefly to new clause 1. As a new Member, I find the quality of the new clause disappointing. It does a disservice to the intentions of those who tabled it, so I invite them to withdraw it. The wording is far too vague and subjective. It is without guidelines and substance. Its incredible vagueness would make for a very unworkable piece of legislation. I believe in proper scrutiny in Committee, and the quality of the new clause is not good. It is a lawyer’s gift and would be subject to countless legal challenges and much litigation, which is exactly what the Bill is meant to stop.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Dines]

I am just finishing. I respectfully ask for the new clause to be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

We have already published a response to our consultation, which was widely available for everybody to see. We have also published a response that contains a lot of the conversations around this. As I have indicated, we have engaged with a number of different parties and have arrived at the decision that this was a fair and proportionate line to tread in order to achieve the effects that we are trying to achieve.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am going to speak to new clause 1, and then I will happily give way.

Our intention with the measures that we have introduced in part 1 of the Bill was to ensure that we could provide the utmost reassurance to our service personnel and veterans in relation to the threat of repeated scrutiny and potential prosecution for alleged offences occurring many years ago on overseas operations. This has meant seeking to have a balance in introducing protective measures that would set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted, as well as ensuring that the adverse impact of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service person or veteran, but which would not act as an amnesty or statute of limitations, would not fetter the prosecutor’s discretion in making a decision to prosecute, and would be compliant with international law. We have achieved that balance in the combination of clauses 2 and 3. We are providing the additional protection that our service personnel and veterans so greatly deserve, while ensuring that, in exceptional circumstances, individuals can still be prosecuted for alleged offences.

New clause 1 would effectively replace the presumption against prosecution with a requirement in clause 1 that the prosecutor should consider only whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial when coming to a decision on whether to prosecute. This not only removes the high threshold of the presumption, but seeks to replace it with a consideration—whether the passage of time would prejudice the chance of a fair trial—which is likely to already be considered by the prosecutor when applying the existing public interest test. We have never suggested that service personnel or veterans have been subject to unfair trials. We have sought instead to highlight not only the difficulties, but the adverse impacts on our personnel, of pursuing allegations of historical criminal offences. Justice delayed is often justice denied, for defendants and for victims. I believe that clauses 2 and 3 provide the appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice, and the requirement to provide a fair and deserved level of protection for our service personnel and veterans. Removing the presumption in the way the new clause proposes would simply remove that balance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I am answering the hon. Gentleman’s question. However, we welcomed the Judge Advocate General’s interest in the Bill: an offer was made for the project team to engage with him at a convenient time, and I subsequently met him. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s views on who would be consulted if the Bill were drafted in a civilian context, but I am entirely comfortable that the Department spoke to the right people to gauge their views on how we should deal with the current system, which is difficult and ultimately unfair to veterans.

I respect all the views that we heard last week—of course I do—but I am allowed to disagree with them. Having worked on this for seven years, it is possible to hear other people’s views on the matter and disagree with them. The Department has taken a balanced and proportionate view, and indeed, it has incorporated a lot of views from other stakeholders throughout the process.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Not at the moment. Although that should therefore help to reduce the likelihood of investigations being reopened without new and compelling evidence, it does not create an absolute bar to investigations or prosecutions, as a statute of limitations or an amnesty would. Rather, the presumption is rebuttal, with the prosecutor retaining the discretion to prosecute where they determine that it would be appropriate to do so. That may include cases in which there is evidence that a serious offence has been committed.

In contrast, an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel would be a breach of our international legal obligations and would pose significant challenges and risks. That includes the risk that, in the absence of a domestic system for the prosecution of international criminal offences, the International Criminal Court would assert its jurisdiction and bring prosecutions against members of the UK armed forces. The presumption against prosecution, however, is consistent with our international legal obligations, as it would not affect the UK’s willingness or ability to investigate or prosecute alleged offences committed by our service personnel.

Finally, the statutory presumption and the measures in clauses 3 and 5 will apply only to proceedings that start after the Bill has become law. Although alleged criminal offences relating to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan occurred more than five years ago, meaning that the presumption could be applied in any relevant prosecutorial decisions, it is likely that any remaining investigations of those allegations will be complete before the Bill becomes law. If any new credible allegations relating to Iraq and Afghanistan should arise, however, they will obviously be subject to investigation and, where appropriate, consideration by a prosecutor. Any decision to prosecute such a case after the Bill has become law must, in accordance with the presumption, be exceptional.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for giving way—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order. The Committee is suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mrs Lewell-Buck was intervening on the Minister.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It was remiss of me not to mention what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It has been a pleasure all day, and hopefully all week.

Has clause 2 been given approval by the CPS? The Minister mentioned that it does not breach international humanitarian law. Can he explain which organisations and professionals have said that? I give him some gentle advice, which I hope he will take in the way that it is intended: legislation made purely on one’s own views, against the advice of experts and others who know exactly what they are talking about, is not the right way to go. It is playing fast and loose with our armed forces and is going to have serious, unintended consequences.

[Johnny Mercer]

On the idea that the Department does anything other than seek the views of experts to bring through this difficult legislation, in evidence the hon. Lady has seen a set of views given by campaign groups, but those are not the only views available. This is difficult legislation that, of course, will be contested, but the idea that we have just come up with some idea after a public consultation lasting many months—[Interruption.]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 14th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I am asking whether the hon. Gentleman wants to vote on the amendment.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Stringer. I was under the impression that we voted on amendment 26 as part of the first grouping.

[The Chair]

We did not. We debated it. There is a difference between debates on amendments grouped together because they are related and the order in which decisions are taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Is my right hon. Friend a little concerned about the Secretary of State’s comments, as I am? If indeed those comments are true and that is the intention, why has the Minister not tabled amendments today to address that issue?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We were told, although I do not believe it, that the Government wanted to improve the Bill and would consider amendments. I accept that Opposition amendments are not always properly drafted to fit into a Bill, but it is quite common for the Government to say that they will look at an amendment and change it, but put the spirit of it into a Bill. There is an opportunity to do that now, but unfortunately we have a Minister who clearly just wants to say, “No, we will get the Bill through as drafted, and that’s it,” which is contrary to his statements about trying to work together with people. There is an opportunity to do that now and I do not understand why we cannot do it, as my hon. Friend says.

The Defence Secretary’s statement goes on to say:

“A key part of the review will be its recommendations for any necessary improvements. It will seek to build upon and not reopen the recommendations of the service justice system review”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 9WS.]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

Yes, it would. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: You can understand the problem that the military community have. It is hard enough for someone like me, as a master’s graduate, to understand it, but also trying to get this understood by a large body of quite unqualified people who fought bravely is difficult enough.

The only other qualification that I would add is to do not with the question that you have directly asked but with a broader question, which you may want to touch on later. It is very difficult to separate, in the view of the veteran, operations from one theatre and operations from another theatre. Obviously, you probably know straight away that I am referring to Northern Ireland. I understand, and we understand, that it is not part of this Bill, but I think there has to be a measure by the Government to say—and I think they have—that other measures will be taken ahead to deal with that. That is something that I know is a concern, and it is something that is of prime concern.

Broadly—I have to say this broadly because, again, we have to remember that we do not get people scrutinising the Bill itself; they hear the broad terms of it—it is welcomed by the community and there is no major feedback of negativity other than the points we have registered about claims, which you have clarified very helpfully.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon, colonel. Just a quick question from me. How could the Ministry of Defence better exercise its duty towards soldiers who are accused of crimes?

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: The problem came, in a lot of our cases—certainly with some of the earlier ones with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and others—that, because it was done in a very legal and correct fashion, sometimes we can forget that the care is needed, because they still are people. It was often very difficult for people to get facts and information about what was likely happening. I would say that we have come quite a long way with that. We have an independent ombudsman and others. Personally I think that has been a huge step forward, and I met Nicola the other day. We must remember that we have to think about whether there is a resource capability gap or not, to allow some form of funded or additional care for the families, and also potentially for people’s loss of earnings and loss of promotion.

One of the biggest fears and concerns that people had is that their career was on hold and their career was affected. Like it or not, that comes down to the financial burden that people feel they have suffered unduly. I can think of several cases where it is pretty hard to explain why certain people were not promoted for a few years when these investigations were going on. Obviously, it was a difficult position for everyone.

There are two things there: a broad duty of care with some resourcing for the impact on families and the individuals themselves, whether that is more information or some sort of independent helpline. Perhaps it could be done through a body such as the ombudsman or something in addition to that. Secondly, it is the ability to explain and understand those pieces.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Q Is there anything in the Bill that improves the duty of care?

Lieutenant Colonel Parker: I have not found it because I think it is a softer thing—it is beyond the Bill. It is something that the MOD would have to bring in. It is a chain of command issue. It is very difficult for people. The chain of command is uniquely allied to the same thing as the duty of care chain, because it is the officers, and therefore there has to be perhaps support outside of the chain of command: somebody to care, outside the direct chain of command, for those individuals. People have made the best effort to get by, but we have a unique problem where the officer chain of command, the line between [Inaudible] and courts martial, cannot be compromised, and therefore other people have to be involved.

[The Chair]

I call Stuart Anderson.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Johnny Mercer]

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

[The Chair]

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill (Second sitting)

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you very much in advance for giving evidence today. I will ask Emma Lewell-Buck to start the evidence session.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q Good afternoon to both of you. As you are aware, the main purpose of the Bill is to provide greater legal protections to forces and veterans. In your opinion, does it fully do that?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: No, APIL’s position is that the Bill does not afford that. We acknowledge the good intentions behind the Bill. However, in respect of part 2 of the Bill, which I am here to discuss—the civil claims aspect—we believe that it strips service personnel and veterans of certain rights in relation to civil claims and their rights under the European convention on human rights.

Emma Norton: I would agree with that and I will not repeat it. I would say that one of the major flaws in the Bill is that it does not address the issue of the investigations that gave rise to all the problems that we are dealing with today. I think you heard that in the previous evidence; it has been a thread that has been running throughout the evidence that the Committee has heard today.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Q Bearing in mind your answers, I think I know the answer to the next question. Do either of you feel that it will reduce the number of investigations and reinvestigations or not?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I may pass that question to Emma, who is here primarily to deal with those issues in respect of investigations. My remit is in respect of civil claims.

Emma Norton: I think there were very serious problems with the original investigations that took place into the allegations of harm in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is what made it relatively easy for courts to find that, time and again, fresh investigations needed to be conducted, which then gave rise to further litigation. The responses from the Ministry of Defence to those adverse findings did not go far enough. The investigations that we had had time and again never got to the bottom of what had happened.

As witnesses have said, the longer period of time that you get between the event and the investigation, the harder it is to get to the bottom of what happened. If we were serious about really addressing the issues that Mr Campbell and other veterans have described, we would be looking at what kinds of systems and structures that we could build now and that would ensure that this does not happen again. What kinds of investigations could we set up and design that could function in the context of overseas operations? I am afraid that until that happens, these problems are going to recur and I do not think the Bill addresses them.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Q Would either of you advocate a pause on the Bill going through right now until some of the issues can be ironed out properly?

Emma Norton: I am happy to say that I would, personally. That would have been a sensible way to go about it—to have a consultation that would really hear from individuals who had been directly affected by investigations, as well as victims, and to speak to experts who can talk to the challenges of building a really good system of investigations overseas, because it is really difficult and we do not underestimate that. There are lots of things that could be done and could be done better.

There was a service justice review, and I know we are expecting some further responses to the recommendations in that review, but that was published in February and it had taken two years to get to. That contained some really interesting ideas about how we could improve service policing and the quality of prosecutorial decision making. I know that there are lots of other ideas—ideas about maybe getting greater degrees of civilian oversight and input into military policing overseas, or possibly having judicial oversight of decisions to detain insurgents and reviews of those kinds of decisions. It would have been more sensible to have those discussions first and then look at what was needed by way of amendments to the criminal law. It feels very much—we have heard this a couple of times today—that this is a cart before the horse situation.

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I would add my agreement to that. APIL’s concern is that the impact assessment does not go far enough and is not clear. I would welcome a pause so that a proper impact assessment can be taken and further expert evidence explored.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Thank you both. My colleague, Kevan Jones, wants to come in quickly on investigations as well.

[Mr Jones]

Q On investigations, a theme has come out in the reading and in this morning’s session. We have time limits here for bringing prosecutions. Would you suggest time limits for investigations? The Human Rights Act says, I think, you have got to have speedy investigations. Even without time limits, is there a role for judicial oversight of those investigations as they are ongoing—an investigation could get to a point where independent judicial oversight could say, “Nothing further is going to be gained from taking this prosecution any further”? What are your thoughts on that?

Emma Norton: I do not think you can have a set time limit for an investigation. I think an investigation needs to take as long as it takes, as long as it is being conducted expeditiously. The problem with the original responses to allegations of really serious abuse overseas was that those allegations were not responded to sufficiently, certainly in accordance with our convention-compliant obligations, which are that they needed to be sufficiently independent, sufficiently well-resourced, sufficiently prompt, adequate—all those kinds of things. I do not think that setting an arbitrary time limit on what would be criminal investigations is necessarily helpful. If we think about how police conduct criminal investigations domestically, although there are time limits in terms of issues around police bail and things like that, there are no hard and fast time limits within which police need to complete those investigations, although obviously they should do them as quickly as possible, because otherwise the defendant is prejudiced.

[Mr Jones]

Q What about actually having a review of the investigation—an independent review of those investigations?

Emma Norton: In terms of how that would function overseas, I can see the benefit. It may be that when you have sufficient levels of civilian input into those investigations or oversight into those investigations, or judicial oversight into decisions to detain in theatre, then that may not be necessary; you could inject that level of requisite independence in those ways. This is something that would really benefit from a wider consultation with experts in criminal law and procedure, who are experienced in criminal law and procedure but also in the challenges of having investigations overseas. We have not had that.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Q Going back to my earlier question, does the Bill open up the possibility of more prosecutions in the ICC?

Ahmed Al-Nahhas: I am sorry, I cannot comment on criminal matters.

Emma Norton: I am not an expert in international criminal law, but if an otherwise credible allegation of a war crime was not proceeded with because of the Bill, that by definition increases the risk that those matters would be taken up by the ICC. That is something, of course, that our Judge Advocate General Jeff Blackett has very real concerns about and has spoken about. I know a lot of others also have very serious concerns about that.

We have heard a lot about veterans and their understandable fear and anxiety. We have heard less from very senior and formerw members of the armed forces who are really concerned about these provisions—the criminal side of the Bill as well as the civil side—and feel they are not in accordance with the Army’s values and standards. The message the Bill will project to the rest of the world about how the Army wishes to conduct itself is really serious, and they feel quite despairing about it. I was speaking to a former brigadier this morning who served 36 years, and he said that he was really ashamed of the Bill. So I think there is a real concern.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Thank you both very much.

[Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)]

Q Hello, Emma. It is good to see you again. I am intrigued with what you just said. A blunt question to you: do you feel that the Bill is necessary?

Emma Norton: What is necessary is for what happened in the past never to happen again—definitely. I just do not think that the Bill will fix it, for the reasons I have given. I will not go over them again, but they go to the lack of willingness inside the MOD to look at those allegations at the time.

I think we are in a different place now. The MOD has learned a huge amount from all those errors. I would say that the MOD has learned from some of the litigation; there have been some very positive outcomes from that, and that is missing from the debate. I just do not think that the Bill fixes those problems sufficiently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the (a) development of the NHS test and trace app and (b) trial of that app on the Isle of Wight.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the (a) development of the NHS test and trace app and (b) trial of that app on the Isle of Wight.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

The NHS test and trace service is already alerting the close recent contacts of everyone who tests positive for the virus, so that they can self-isolate to prevent the spread. The app is intended to complement that service and continues to be piloted on the Isle of Wight. Consideration is being given to next steps in light of the wider NHS test and trace programme.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a series of very important points. The Isle of Wight was an appropriate place in which to trial the app, because by definition trialling it in a geographically secure, as it were, community was one way to make sure that we could conduct that trial in an effective way and in a way that allowed us to learn lessons rapidly. Trialling the app in other parts of the United Kingdom would have posed significant challenges, but he is absolutely right to remind us that the BAME community is more affected by covid-19, and that there are elements within the BAME community that have concerns about the exercise of state power in maintaining public order and in other areas. We are very sensitive to both of those issues. It is absolutely critical that we continue to work to identify more effectively those factors among the BAME community and others which predispose them towards either catching the virus or suffering more adversely. Of course, when it comes to our proud tradition of policing by consent and the protection of civil liberties, we need to maintain those traditions in order to command the confidence of all our citizens.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

It’s been a shambles, hasn’t it? Announced in May, hiring paused in mid-May, targets missed, tracers reporting that they have been paid to sit at home and watch television as there is no work for them—and now, changes to the app are being considered and it is not going to be working properly until the autumn. Does the Minister stand by his fulsome praise of the Health Secretary or agree with scientists who said only days ago that the Government’s whole test-and-trace strategy is simply not fit for purpose?

[Michael Gove]

Well, I think it is fit for purpose—not just that but it is an effective way of ensuring that we can work together in order to contain the virus. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says from a sedentary position that the scientists are wrong. I disagree with her; I think the scientists are right.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion & Ways and Means resolution
Friday 20th December 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

In the 2016 referendum, I promised my constituents that, whatever the result was—whatever mandate they gave—I would respect it. In 2017, I stood on a manifesto that said I would continue to respect that mandate, and work for a deal and to avoid no deal. That is exactly what I did. In this election, I was clear with my constituents that I still respected that mandate and that I would work for a deal to leave the EU.

People respond to clear and consistent messaging. My party’s catch-all Brexit policy failed. Today was, and still is, an opportunity to stop the procrastination and send a message to our lost voters—the voters that our party was created to give a voice to in Parliament—that we do hear them, value them and genuinely want to rebuild their trust.

I am fed up with hearing that we need to listen more to our working class communities—communities that some people here speak about as if they were some kind of homogenous block who all think and feel in exactly the same way. They certainly do not. Many of us here listen to our communities every single day. Some who did that are no longer in this place, because others refused to hear or act on the voices of their constituents, which they so passionately articulated. I am deeply saddened that my right honourable friend the former Member for Don Valley, who has been an utterly fierce champion for democracy, her constituents and those of us who wanted to honour the promises we made to our voters, is no longer on these Benches. She, along with my honourable friends the former Members for Great Grimsby, for Crewe and Nantwich, for Stoke-on-Trent North, for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Leigh were—and I know that they take absolutely no pleasure in this at all—right on this issue every single step of the way. This debate and this place are poorer without them.

Just over eight weeks ago, those former Members and I voted for the Second Reading of this Bill, which has now changed. In my time in this House, we often voted for Second Readings. We sometimes have not liked the Bills, but Second Reading is not a blank cheque; it is an opportunity to move the debate forward, propose amendments and seek improvements. I will vote for Second Reading again today.

The programme motion is short. Last time, we tried to force the Government to offer more time and we ended up in the worst general election in my memory. Now, much as I am heartbroken by the fact, the Conservative party has an overwhelming mandate that it did not have last time we debated this Bill. I will vote for the programme motion as well and put my energy into making the case for changes in Committee. I do not want to oppose for opposition’s sake: we need to build consensus and stop the combative nature of this debate. That serves no one, and the past three years have proven that.

This has been an awful, toxic period in our politics. I have despaired at how this place has descended so many times into the most divisive, base, angry, gallery-pleasing politics. It might make for good headlines, but it does not make for a serious, functioning Parliament that people can have any respect for or any faith in. I will always deliver on the promises that I make to my constituents. Their faith in me always matters. My word to them matters. It is with the heaviest of hearts that I cannot vote with my party today, but I will always put my constituents before everything else, because the day I do not is the day I no longer deserve the honour of being their voice in this place.

Priorities for Government

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is doing to support our hydrocarbon industry in Aberdeen and thereabouts. Clearly, that industry has a great future, and it can be used additionally to help reduce our carbon footprint.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

As Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman’s trademark bluff and bluster will not wash. He needs to be on top of the details, so can he now answer: what is in article XXIV, paragraph 5(c) of the general agreement on tariffs and trade?

[The Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady knows full well—not that we will get to that situation, and not that I wish to rely remotely on article 5(c)—we intend of course, if we have to, to confide absolutely in article 5(b), which provides ample—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to repeat what I have said previously—that we will be leaving the European Union on 29 March. I want us to leave the European Union on 29 March with the good deal that is on the table.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

Q15. My constituents Sarah and Chris Cookson lost their little boy Charlie in 2013. Since then, they have devoted their lives to helping other families and children with life-limiting conditions via their charity, the Charlie Cookson Foundation. On Boxing Day, Sarah gave birth to Carter John Cookson. He had three cardiac arrests in one day. After an unsuccessful operation, he is now fighting for his life, in need of a heart transplant. Carter has been given only a matter of weeks to live. Will the Prime Minister join me today in raising awareness to help us to find a heart for little baby Carter?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first join the hon. Lady in commending the work that the Cooksons have done with the Charlie Cookson Foundation in raising funds for children and babies with life-threatening conditions. I am sure that the sympathies of the whole House are with the family at this very, very difficult time. The hon. Lady has outlined some of the specifics of the case, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister at the Department of Health and Social Care meets her to discuss the issue further.

We do want to change the culture on organ donation in order to save more lives. That is why we are planning to introduce a new opt-out system in England in 2020. The new law will be known as Max and Keira’s law, in honour of Max Johnson, who received a heart from Keira Ball, and Keira, who sadly lost her life in a car accident. However, the hon. Lady has outlined a tragic case, and I will ensure that a Minister from the Department speaks with her about it.

European Council

Emma Lewell-Buck Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to ensure that we are protecting the economy for the future, and that is what this deal does. Those young people at University Centre Somerset would want to see not just a Government but an Opposition putting their interests and the national interest first, rather than the Opposition putting their party interests first.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The past few weeks have shown that this deal is going nowhere, and today’s statement does not change that. Does the Prime Minister now regret not working cross-party to build a consensus in this House? Why will she not accept that there is a way out of this hopeless situation by extending article 50 and working together, without the political posturing, for a deal that works for everyone?

[The Prime Minister]

We have negotiated a deal that works for everyone. I say to the hon. Lady simply this: in June 2016, a vote was held and people voted to leave the European Union. On 29 March 2019, the date set for us to leave the EU, it will be nearly three years since that vote. I think people want us to get on with leaving the EU, and that is what we will do.